Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful provenance fact, that results are consumer-reported scam incidents, but says nothing about pagination depth, result ranking, or coverage limits beyond that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the data source, the resource, and the filter axes. It is efficient with no filler, though it is terse enough that the guidance gap is partly a product of its brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description does not need to explain returns. For a nine-parameter search surface, however, it omits how the filters combine and when the tool is the wrong choice, leaving it only minimum-viable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all nine parameters (including the paired date and dollar-range constraints) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the query and category concepts already covered there, adding no format or interaction detail of its own.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (search) and resource (BBB Scam Tracker consumer-reported scam incidents) and delimits the two entry mechanisms: free-text query and scam category. It implicitly separates itself from bbb_scamtracker_detail (a record lookup) and bbb_search (business search), but never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus bbb_scamtracker_detail, bbb_scamtracker_state_stats, or the general bbb_search. The 'and/or' phrasing hints at combining filters, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.